SURAJ AND SONS Vs. JOBRIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is bound to succeed as in my opinion the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court, has been misled into the decision at which ha arrived by a certain Rangoon decision which was based on an older decision which was subsequently overruled by that very Court.

(2.) The applicants here were the plaintiffs in the Court below. They brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for recovery of five months hire of a spring bedstead which was the subject matter of an agreement dated 16 February 1930.

(3.) The question is what was the import of the agreement whether it was primarily a transaction of hire and ultimately a transaction of sale or whether substantially it was a transaction for sale. Reading the document independently unaided by any authority I have not the slightest doubt that it was primarily a transaction of hire.